State sponsored terrorism

quote:

---

Hmm, could you give us a complete sentence on this statement? This sounds alarmingly like quote mining.

---

Sure. Up to a quarter of a million men, women and children were killed or died as a direct result of the American-led attack on Iraq. This confirmed American and French intelligence estimates of 'in excess of 200 000 civilian deaths.'

quote:

---

And?

---

General Schwarzkopf's policy was that Iraqi dead were not to be counted. One of his senior officers boasted, 'This is the first war in modern times where every screwdriver, every nail is accounted for.' As for human beings, he added, 'I don't think anybody is going to be able to come up with an accurate count for Iraqi dead'.

quote:

---

Well next time, I suppose we could recruit different people for Saddam's army.

---

Well, sure, Suddam Hussein conscripted his political enemies into the army, so if they're dead, who are you going to replace Hussein with?

quote:

---

I have not heard this figure of 'billions' before. What is its source? I notice that Clark does not say billions of dollars so we do not even know what currency he is referring to. Does Clark deny that the 'elite' live lives of luxury and that Saddam has not squandered money on arms? This is just another political paper with political motives. Please find a more objective report.

---

More objective report? Clark is the UN secretary-general, who chaired the Clark Commission which investigated the bombing of Iraq.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-18-2002]

Those figures came from western journalists. John Pilger has been a war correspondent, author and film-maker. He twice won British journalism's highest award, Journalist of the Year for his work around the world, notably Vietnam and Cambodia. He has been International Reporter of the Year and winner of the United Nations Associatiion Media Peace Prise. For his broadcast, he has won France's Reporter sans Frontieres, American tv academy Aard, an Emmy, and an Richard Dimbleby Award.As for motivation politically, John Pilger has gone to the countries devastated by the attacks. He was born in Australia and lives in London. If it was motivated politically then why aren't those journalists from say a third world country affected by the attacks?

quote:

---

That was justified. The Soviets were invading Afghanistan, spreading Communism in the process. During the Afghanistan invasion the Soviets deployed bombs fashioned after children's toys and had a policy of bayoneting pregnant women -- that way they would kill the next generation of fighters before they posed a threat.

---

So the US use of weapons contrary to the Geneva conventions is alright? Such as cluster bombs which, when exploded, spread out thousands of small metal shards that penetrate the skin and kill the person from the inside by their movement inside the body, causing unimaginable pain, and napalm 2, which is much worse than napalm in that it sticks to the skin, is impossible to get off and gradually burns over the entire body? You forget too that most of the mines left in other countries were laid by America, and the fact that when America used Agent Orange in Vietnam scientists in the US had already alerted the fact that the chemical caused birth defects in babies, and the US decided to use Agent Orange anyway?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Hmm, could you give us a complete sentence on this statement? This sounds alarmingly like quote mining.

---

​

Sure. Up to a quarter of a million men, women and children were killed or died as a direct result of the American-led attack on Iraq. This confirmed American and French intelligence estimates of 'in excess of 200 000 civilian deaths.'

---

Still not good enough, Blitz. This count does not differentiate between civilian and military deaths. They are all lumped together. As far as I can tell, there might be 240,000 combatant deaths.

quote:

---

General Schwarzkopf's policy was that Iraqi dead were not to be counted. One of his senior officers boasted, 'This is the first war in modern times where every screwdriver, every nail is accounted for.' As for human beings, he added, 'I don't think anybody is going to be able to come up with an accurate count for Iraqi dead'.

---

And this means what? I know that after Vietnam there was a certain revulsion to body counts, but so what? And why are we sliding so easily between civilian and combatant deaths? Is it really our job to count the dead? I really don't get your point here.

quote:

---

Well next time, I suppose we could recruit different people for Saddam's army.

​

Well, sure, Suddam Hussein conscripted his political enemies into the army, so if they're dead, who are you going to replace Hussein with?

---

You mean after he's killed them all? I have little concern that there will be no volunteers. Do you think all Iraqis are in Iraq?

quote:

---

I have not heard this figure of 'billions' before. What is its source? I notice that Clark does not say billions of dollars so we do not even know what currency he is referring to. Does Clark deny that the 'elite' live lives of luxury and that Saddam has not squandered money on arms? This is just another political paper with political motives. Please find a more objective report.

​

More objective report? Clark is the UN secretary-general, who chaired the Clark Commission which investigated the bombing of Iraq.

---

Oh sure, he's immune from politics. Come on, all these guys have an axe to grind and his is obvious. By the way, you have not answered my question here. I really want to believe you, but your arguments are so colored by political opinion that I cannot.

quote:

---

Sure. Up to a quarter of a million men, women and children were killed or died as a direct result of the American-led attack on Iraq. This confirmed American and French intelligence estimates of 'in excess of 200 000 civilian deaths.'

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Still not good enough, Blitz. This count does not differentiate between civilian and military deaths. They are all lumped together. As far as I can tell, there might be 240,000 combatant deaths.

---

'in excess of 200 000 civilian deaths'.

quote:

---

And this means what? I know that after Vietnam there was a certain revulsion to body counts, but so what? And why are we sliding so easily between civilian and combatant deaths? Is it really our job to count the dead? I really don't get your point here.

---

You did ask me what was before the 'And'. I just answered your question.

quote:

---

You mean after he's killed them all? I have little concern that there will be no volunteers. Do you think all Iraqis are in Iraq?

---

Lets put it one way. You want to overthrow Hussein. So you kill Hussein's opponents?

quote:

---

Oh sure, he's immune from politics. Come on, all these guys have an axe to grind and his is obvious. By the way, you have not answered my question here. I really want to believe you, but your arguments are so colored by political opinion that I cannot.

---

Less coloured than that of George W. Bush and the tabloid media in the US I'd guess.

gene90
Hey umm, Moose, you feeling ok? I would NOT say something like that. First of all it looks to me like you are a terrorist sympathizer (in fact I'm disgusted by it). Secondly it reads like a threat.
You do realize that if were heard saying something like that in a public place (like, oh, say, an airport terminal) people in uniform would wisk you away where you would be questioned by g-men.M: Then Bin Laden has already won...you either believe that freedom is a principle worth practicing and defending even in times of extreme duress and even in cases where the opinion of your opposition "disgusts" you. Or you drop the hypocricy and say the hell with it and live without it...and save on the body bags for people who fight thinking they are defending freedom.gene90
This is no less a public a place.M: Some people think the mormons are evil...should they be banned from public places? If he can't air his views in public should you be allowed..who will determine this in a "free" society?Moose:
The White House is a prime "axis of evil" in this world.gene90
I can almost see that followed by a remark about "the Western Devil".M: So you are a blind nationalist that accepts every policy that comes out of the White House as pure with beneficial motivations? LOL!
I would not define it perhaps as an axis of evil but certainly one of the most corrupt organizations outside of the mafia..only less well organized and efficient. It is an organization dedicated to high paying special interest groups...sometimes it benefits everybody, often it does not.

quote:

---

Fear? Or common sense?

---

*Common sense* tells me Moose is venting his frustration and not planning terrorist attacks.

quote:

---

Surely you realize that this is, at the very least, a very insensitive thing to say?

---

I would agree that AT MOST it is an insensitive thing to say.

quote:

---

No, I think we're going to nail some people that hate us (and frankly need nailing).

---

Well, a hell of a lot of people hate us. And lots of people that need nailing by us instead get aid. I think that's the sort of thing I'm frustrated by. (I'm not declaring any love for Hussein. I do, however, think our policy has been incredibly stupid for many reasons, but that would require a much longer post.)

quote:

---

I would have supported airstrikes against the Taliban pre-9/11. I think they deserved it when they began destroying ancient religious icons of significant cultural value.

---

I would have settled for not actively helping them. That would have been a nice start.

quote:

---

I'm not denying that. The US government exists for only one reason, that is to promote the interests of the people that live there. Overthrowing dangerous regimes is an extension of that.

---

Do you really want to set a world precedent of overthrowing regimes considered "dangerous", but not actually doing anything? We have a long history of doing that, and I can't see what the payoff has been. And think about all the countries that consider the U.S. dangerous! It's an incredibly dangerous precedent. And while the government exists to protect U.S. interests, my problem is that foriegn policy is ruled by short-term interests, not long term.

quote:

---

If you don't like this country, you are free to leave.

---

Damn, that's lame! "Love it or leave it" Well, I do love the U.S. Speaking up for how it can improve is the highest form of patriotism. You don't deny the policies, I note. Do you like them? Do you LIKE that we gave the Taliban foriegn aid?

quote:

---

And here it is being used against one's own nation. Bush calls some oppressive dictatorships who have practiced ethnic cleansing and chemical warfare against their own civilian populations an "axis of evil". Moose called his own nation, whose soldiers are about to pay for yet again in human sacrifice, and wherein thousands have recently died simply for being citizens (along with hundreds of foreign nationals) of that nation, an "axis of evil". Do you not pay your Federal income taxes? If you do, that makes you a hypocrite. You're funding what you call the "axis of evil". Again, my suggestion: expatriate.

---

Dude, back up. I didn't call anyone an axis of evil. I wouldn't. I think Moose's use was less dangerous, because it was obviously used ironically (throwing it back at the original source), whereas Bush throws it out in a dangerous powderkeg of world tension. His singling out of Iran was especially irresponsible, as it has shown steady progress towards moderation in recent years. Why alienate a country that is improving?

quote:

---

Your behavior against your own county is both astounding and disturbing, especially when you are not being held here against your will.

---

What behavior? Disagreeing with foriegn policy?I ask again: Do you LIKE that we gave the Taliban foreign aid? Do you think that is worthy of criticism? Does that mean you should leave the country, too?

[QUOTE][B]as cluster bombs which, when exploded, spread out thousands of small metal shards that penetrate the skin and kill the person from the inside by their movement inside the body[/QUOTE][/B]Oh please. Maybe we should ban metal bullets too. When we have wars without killing people then we can stop using cluster bombs [QUOTE][B] and the US decided to use Agent Orange anyway?[/QUOTE][/B]The lives of friendly forces take priority over a reasonable number enemy civilian death. The Vietnamese were waging a guerilla war against the United States. Under the international rules of war, surrendering combatants in uniform must be treated as POWs. However, surrendering combatants not in uniform may be summarily executed as guerillas. Guerilla forces are not legitimate military and have no rights in war. Most of the sites where Agent Orange was sprayed were in combat zones, occupied by guerillas. Therefore use of the substance as a defoliant was justified, even though it was a known carcinogen. The only legitimate victims of Agent Orange were United States soldiers.

[QUOTE][B]Then Bin Laden has already won...you either believe that freedom is a principle worth practicing and defending even in times of extreme duress and even in cases where the opinion of your opposition "disgusts" you.[/QUOTE][/B]Terrorists have little to do with this. There has never been a time in American history when it was legal to call in bomb threats. Freedom of speech has always had practical boundaries. This is one of them. All the terrorists have done is expose vulnerabilities to attack. Now that we see that the Pentagon and White House really could "disappear" one day to announce that it would be a Good Thing To Do is, at best, a foolish thing to do. It is also assinine and, since they actually were targets on 9/11, and a whole lot of people died that day, monstrously insensitive and unacceptable anywhere in civilized society.However, that you believe that Freedom of Speech would allow such a comment strikes me as terribly interesting. I do not know your nationality but I seem to remember your nation of residence. Germany has some of the most restrictive limits on speech and media in Europe. Hogan's Heroes had to be digitally edited before it would be legal to broadcast on German television. American war movies have to be similarly edited because they kindle offensive thoughts in the German public. Also, as I understand it, it is a crime to insult people in Germany. Perhaps you can debunk these as rumors or justify them as laws before we delve into American interpretations of the Freedom of Speech? [QUOTE][B]Or you drop the hypocricy and say the hell with it and live without it...and save on the body bags for people who fight thinking they are defending freedom.[/QUOTE][/B]Germany taught us about pacifism. Twice. Now we know that we have to keep an eye out for threats and (heaven forbid) sometimes strike preemptively. [QUOTE][B]Some people think the mormons are evil...should they be banned from public places?[/QUOTE][/B]Bad analogy.This has nothing to do with what people "think" but what they say. If the LDS church announced that it believed certain US political and military infrastructure should be destroyed then the government would have to do something.That would be different from the church saying that it disagreed with foreign policy.Moose did not say the Pentagon or the White House should be "destroyed" but he did say that the world would be better if they went away. That's exactly what certain terrorists believe. His comments are tantamount to an endorsement. [QUOTE][B]So you are a blind nationalist that accepts every policy that comes out of the White House as pure with beneficial motivations?[/QUOTE][/B]Strawman.I don't think the White House is benevolent. I think it's watching out for US (and Republican) interests. The first part of that is their job, what we put them there for. The second part is what we know they will do, and what any other party would do.If the administration were purely benevolent they would not be doing their job.

[QUOTE][B]*Common sense* tells me Moose is venting his frustration and not planning terrorist attacks.[/QUOTE][/B]Common sense tells me that Moose's commentary cries out for condemnation. [QUOTE][B]I would agree that AT MOST it is an insensitive thing to say.[/QUOTE][/B]Well at least you can see that it is insensitive. I think "insensitive" is an understatement. [QUOTE][B]And lots of people that need nailing by us instead get aid.[/QUOTE][/B]I agree with that. I also agree that we should not have sent the Taliban $43 million in aide for reducing their opium output. [QUOTE][B]Do you really want to set a world precedent of overthrowing regimes considered "dangerous", but not actually doing anything?[/QUOTE][/B]The meaning of this question is ambiguous. However, I think Saddam has done enough.I think we have to play a larger role in the dealings of other nations. I also think we should overthrow rogue nations on a semi-regular basis.As a bonus this is exactly what bin Laden does not want. Increasing US intervention in the Middle East will be a further demonstration that terrorism is an unwise course of action.But as for "not doing anything" I think we're doing quite well. Bush's saber-rattling at Iraq has generated results. Saddam caved in to resume his shell games with the UN inspectors. He's very good at it but it shows that he takes the imminent US invasion seriously. We just might get out of this without a war...but that's highly improbable. [QUOTE][B]And think about all the countries that consider the U.S. dangerous![/QUOTE][/B]What? Why didn't the Taliban wet their pants and give us Osama when we asked? Why didn't Saddam wet his pants and leave Kuwait when we asked? Why are all these dictatorships so incredibly stupid that they always think we're kidding? Or that we don't have the stomach to wipe them out?Invading Iraq and driving out Saddam (even if he escapes) will make the next tinpot dictator with serine dreams think twice before not cooperating. [QUOTE][B]Damn, that's lame![/QUOTE][/B]But it works. If Moose is so ticked off about his party being ousted that he thinks the White House needs to be leveled (as opposed to waiting two years to try again) I think it's time he moved on. If you are convinced that US foreign policy is so dirty why do you continue to support it with your taxes?And by the way, I have a problem with foreign policy too. Why didn't we have a Libyan "regime change" after the Pan Am 103 bombing? Why didn't we bomb Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing? Why are we such great friends with Israel after the USS Liberty incident?But I'm not the one wishing that the 9/11 attacks had been a complete success. [QUOTE][B]Why alienate a country that is improving?[/QUOTE][/B]Because they're still against us. They probably are harboring terrorists.By the way, what's wrong with being honest once in a while? What is diplomacy but glossing over the fact that Iran and the US are enemies?[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
'in excess of 200 000 civilian deaths'.

---

Okay, but I still don't see much corroboration of this number. It is still an estimate with probably political motives behind it. I personally don't believe the 'civilian' part of this. Just look at what 'civilians' do in the Middle East.

quote:

---

Lets put it one way. You want to overthrow Hussein. So you kill Hussein's opponents?

---

Well, if you think that a bunch of illiterate, ragtag soldiers are going to overthrow Saddam and replace him, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

quote:

---

Less coloured than that of George W. Bush and the tabloid media in the US I'd guess.

---

Ah, yes, but I never promoted Bush et al. to be objective experts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]This attitude of caution about what one can say in public is, to me, all the more reason to get the fear- and war-mongers out of office.[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Why? It seems like common sense to me. Theoretically, we have freedom of speech in the US -- but we don't have freedom to call in bomb threats or to shout you-know-what in crowded public spaces. We never have had the freedom to do those things. The current environment of caution is just an application of that basic principle of free speech.

---

Moose didn't call in a bomb threat.Moose didn't yell "fire" in a theater.He just was really bummed out and made a strong statment about how he felt about the war mongers and anti-civil libertarians in washington.If you really think that it's OK that people in America can't shoot their mouth off because they might be taken away by the men in black, then you and I have a very different idea of the kind of place America should be.

quote:

---

Moose may be free to make grossly insensitive and inflammatory remarks

---

Exactly. The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech. It is to protect people against the "tyrrany of the majority."

quote:

---

but my unsolicited advice is that he avoid saying anything that sounds remotely like a threat.

---

OK... [QUOTE][B]Regardless of what you see, the US has had a long standing, horrible habit of aiding terrorists and fascists when it suits our short term interests[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Yes, I know. There are examples as near as South America, and possibly Cuba. For years it has been US policy to defend its interests by installing dictatorships outwardly friendly to American interests, especially during the Cold War. It made perfect sense at the time, but now it is easy for you to criticize the policy, since we know it didn't work.

---

So why do we keep doing it, and why did any real American, who believed in the founding principals of our democratic nation ever think it was OK to support any dictator? It's sad to think that I may be considered hopelessly idealistic for not wanting the US to install brutal dictatorships across the world. [QUOTE][B]We used to like and fund Hussein when we were against Iran.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Not like Iran is our friend either.

---

So why did we ever fund Iran, too?The reason Iran isn't our friend is because we installed a corrupt dictatorship as their government. Those short-term interests I was talking about here. [QUOTE][B]We used to like and aid Ossama Bin Laden back when we were fighting the Russians.[/QUOTE][/B]That was justified. The Soviets were invading Afghanistan, spreading Communism in the process. During the Afghanistan invasion the Soviets deployed bombs fashioned after children's toys and had a policy of bayoneting pregnant women -- that way they would kill the next generation of fighters before they posed a threat.[/B][/QUOTE]Cite?The point is we choose our allies purely on short term intersts. Because we aren't wise in choosing our allies, we have historically chosen despots, tyrants, terrorists, and other amoral power mongers or religious crazies to consort with. These unholy alliances have also historically come back to bite us in the ass on a remarkably consistent basis, yet we keep doing it.A definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.To me, America and the American government stands for more than Americans and our worldly intrests. It stands for the idea of self-government and the right of every human being to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. (Sound familiar to you? I swear I'm not making this up as I go along.)As I was saying, I strongly believe that we should not leave our founding values and human rights standards behind in our foreign policies. We seem to utterly abandon them and become just as amoral and unsavory as the powers we feel so morally superior to. If anything, our foreign policy from the last several decades is just as immoral, or even more so, because, as America, we are supposed to stand for something better.At least, that's the kind of America I want to live in and strive for. I don't want to live in a country whose foreign policy morality can be summed up as "the end justifies the means."

[QUOTE][B]He just was really bummed out and made a strong statment[/QUOTE][/B]Moose made an inescusable statement. [QUOTE][B]If you really think that it's OK that people in America can't shoot their mouth off because they might be taken away by the men in black, then you and I have a very different idea of the kind of place America should be.[/QUOTE][/B]Granted.There will be times when people can be lax. This is not one of them. [QUOTE][B]Exactly. The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech. It is to protect people against the "tyrrany of the majority."[/QUOTE][/B]And it does not allow anything that might possibly be used as a threat. My comment about g-men was a friendly warning. The rest stems from the fact that I found his remarks highly offensive. You may ignore the warning all you like, it isn't what is keeping me in this thread. [QUOTE][B]So why do we keep doing it, and why did any real American, who believed in the founding principals of our democratic nation ever think it was OK to support any dictator?[/QUOTE][/B]Because they were misguided. Back when Evil Godless Communists threatened to engage us in nuclear war I suppose ideals weren't quite so important. I hope our little creations like Saddam are teaching us a lesson about that. But that is beside the point. I never said the White House was on a mercy mission.But I abhor the thought of anyone suggesting that the White House needs to "go away". [QUOTE][B]Cite?[/QUOTE][/B]Actually Schrafinator I expect you to know that before you participate in such a debate, especially since you should have remembered this sort of thing from the evening news, and I would not, but if you're behind, here:U.S. Senate: 404 Error PageI think we did the right thing when we supported the Mujahadeen against the USSR. [QUOTE][B]We seem to utterly abandon them and become just as amoral and unsavory as the powers we feel so morally superior to. If anything, our foreign policy from the last several decades is just as immoral, or even more so, because, as America, we are supposed to stand for something better.[/QUOTE][/B]Our government exists to defend the Constitution of the United States. (I'm not making that up). If we have to back the occasional dictators to advance US security, that's fine by me.

[QUOTE][B]Ah, yes, but I never promoted Bush et al. to be objective experts. [/QUOTE][/B]Hah! Neither did I. Mammuthus thinks I'm some Bush-crazed nationalist when I'm not even a Republican. I just hope this country doesn't suffer another mass-casualty incident any time soon. All the anti-American sentiment I see in the world, even right here, isn't encouraging.

quote:

---

Common sense tells me that Moose's commentary cries out for condemnation.

---

Condemn all you want for insensitivity, although if you read what he actually wrote, he surely wasn't making any threat.

quote:

---

I agree with that. I also agree that we should not have sent the Taliban $43 million in aide for reducing their opium output.

---

You commie punk! Love the U.S. or leave it!Zhimbo: [QUOTE][B] Do you really want to set a world precedent of overthrowing regimes considered "dangerous", but not actually doing anything?[/QUOTE][/B]
gene90:

quote:

---

I also think we should overthrow rogue nations on a semi-regular basis.

---

So why do you apparently support the U.S. creating them?

quote:

---

But as for "not doing anything" I think we're doing quite well. Bush's saber-rattling at Iraq has generated results. Saddam caved in to resume his shell games with the UN inspectors. He's very good at it but it shows that he takes the imminent US invasion seriously. We just might get out of this without a war...but that's highly improbable.

---

There may well be something to this, if indeed this has only been saber rattling. But I don't see the wisdom in completely squandering international good will following 9/11 with unilateral threats. We could have easily pushed for an identical U.N. resolution as we have now, months ago, without pissing off our allies.Zhimbo: [QUOTE][B]And think about all the countries that consider the U.S. dangerous![/QUOTE]gene90:
[/B]

quote:

---

What? Why didn't the Taliban wet their pants and give us Osama when we asked? Why didn't Saddam wet his pants and leave Kuwait when we asked? Why are all these dictatorships so incredibly stupid that they always think we're kidding? Or that we don't have the stomach to wipe them out?

---

I think our respective sides of this conversation here have slipped way past each other. I really don't see this as a reply to my point, which is: If the U.S. claims that pre-emptive destruction of "dangerous" governments is valid foriegn policy, think of the chaos that will follow if the rest of the world follows our lead! I mean, first India and Pakistan will be at each other, then North Korea and South Korea, Israel will be immediately trounced by about 50 gajillion countries, etc...This is what I mean by "dangerous precedent".

quote:

---

Invading Iraq and driving out Saddam (even if he escapes) will make the next tinpot dictator with serine dreams think twice before not cooperating.

---

Or spawn yet more Bin Ladens.

quote:

---

And by the way, I have a problem with foreign policy too. Why didn't we have a Libyan "regime change" after the Pan Am 103 bombing? Why didn't we bomb Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing? Why are we such great friends with Israel after the USS Liberty incident?

---

Commie punk! Love the U.S. or leave it!Really, Gene, why do you have the luxury of disagreeing with U.S. policy, and not being labelled a "hypocrite" for paying your taxes, or being told to leave the country? But *I* disagree with U.S. policy, and I get the "love it or leave it" rhetoric?

quote:

---

But I'm not the one wishing that the 9/11 attacks had been a complete success.

---

Oh come on. This is beneath you. You know no-one here was rooting bin Laden on! Yes, that includes Moose. Sheesh.Zhimbo: [QUOTE][B]Why alienate a country that is improving?[/QUOTE][/B]
gene90:

quote:

---

Because they're still against us. They probably are harboring terrorists.

---

Oh, yeah, and I suppose that building ties with the increasingly powerful moderate reform movement there would be too much bother.